[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Why were the ten commandments the only ones given to the Israelites via speech, voice, and on one on one without human mediator? Everyone hearing for himself, seeing the lightening, and the might displayed during the solemn declaration of the ten commandments?

It must have meant special place and message those ten laws occupied over the others. What do you think?

grip, there's a second set of 10 commandments in exodus 34.

When the law is mentioned in the New testament, does it mean just the ten commandments (in exodus 20)?

[grip_daddy]

Originally Posted by ndigila

grip, there's a second set of 10 commandments in exodus 34.

When the law is mentioned in the New testament, does it mean just the ten commandments (in exodus 20)?

First I would like to know what intent God had in pronouncing the ten commandments to the Israelites in Person. After He Himself assembled these people, He spoke (see the words of James in James chapter 2) then wrote the same words in two tables of stone. The rest of the commandments were just written in a book by Moses as God said them to Him as opposed to God writing them Himself as He did with the ten commandments.

So if you could give me a reason for this distinction and specialty in treatment given the ten commandments, I would explain my understanding to the words, "law", "commandment", "ordinance", etc as found in the NT.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

First I would like to know what intent God had in pronouncing the ten commandments to the Israelites in Person. After He Himself assembled these people, He spoke (see the words of James in James chapter 2) then wrote the same words in two tables of stone. The rest of the commandments were just written in a book by Moses as God said them to Him as opposed to God writing them Himself as He did with the ten commandments.

So if you could give me a reason for this distinction and specialty in treatment given the ten commandments, I would explain my understanding to the words, "law", "commandment", "ordinance", etc as found in the NT.

Grip, the commandments in exodus 34 were written by God (in person).

And its interesting to note that when Jesus expounded on the (exodus 20) commandments in the Sermon on the Mount, he didn't mention the one dealing with the Sabbath.

I think one problem we have is that we have two different sources of authority. For you its the Bible only, and for me its the Bible and the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.

[grip_daddy]

Grip, the commandments in exodus 34 were written by God (in person).


The commandments that God wrote for the second time were the same very commandments He wrote on the first tables of stones, and the very commandments He spoke by His mouth to the Children of Israel. So I dont see a different set of commandments. In this chapter too, there are other words God summarily spoke to Moses which were not recorded in the table of stones.

And its interesting to note that when Jesus expounded on the (exodus 20) commandments in the Sermon on the Mount, he didn't mention the one dealing with the Sabbath.

He selectively mentioned commandments to teach an underlying truth; that the commandments given had a deeper meaning, whether the ten, or the ceremonial, or the civil laws. On the Mount His intent was to preach to His listeners the spirit of the law and principles of life according to God's love, mercy, and justice. Remember the same confusion about changing the law looked apparent to his listeners that's why He emphatically stated in Matt 5:17 onwards that He did not come to abolish the law.

I think one problem we have is that we have two different sources of authority.

All the sources of information should be in harmony and meet requirements a given standard. Personally I compare any doctrine to the general underlying doctrines of God, one being to keep God's commandments (see Daniel 7:25, Matt 15:9, Rev 12:17; 14:12). Anyone teaching that even one of the ten commandments is not important, I disregard that person and classify the source as false teaching (see Isaiah 8 especially vs 16 and 20).

For you its the Bible only, and for me its the Bible and the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.

I also study church's history to see how different doctrines emerged, how they understood God's providence and leadership, how they acquired divergent practices, and how such practices, beliefs, and doctrines maybe a reflection to secular philosophies of their times, if any doctrine may have had a pagan influence, and if any system of belief meet the test methods given by the bible. Paul said that we try every spirit, and the bible clearly outlines the criteria to do the evaluation.

Remember the bible talked of those who will err from the faith, those who were among the membership of the church, but they went away from the church to teach their own gospel. Paul encountered them, John dealt with them, Peter talked of their coming, and Jude cautioned againist them. So traditions that are not according to biblical ratified doctrines must be questioned, and discarded if found wanting.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Grip, the commandments in exodus 34 were written by God (in person).


The commandments that God wrote for the second time were the same very commandments He wrote on the first tables of stones, and the very commandments He spoke by His mouth to the Children of Israel. So I dont see a different set of commandments. In this chapter too, there are other words God summarily spoke to Moses which were not recorded in the table of stones.

Grip, the commandments in exodus 34 are as follows

14
You shall not worship any other god, for the LORD is 'the Jealous One'; a jealous God is he.
15
Do not make a covenant with the inhabitants of that land; else, when they render their wanton worship to their gods and sacrifice to them, one of them may invite you and you may partake of his sacrifice.
16
Neither shall you take their daughters as wives for your sons; otherwise, when their daughters render their wanton worship to their gods, they will make your sons do the same.
17
"You shall not make for yourselves molten gods.
18
"You shall keep the feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days at the prescribed time in the month of Abib you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you; for in the month of Abib you came out of Egypt.
19
"To me belongs every first-born male that opens the womb among all your livestock, whether in the herd or in the flock.
20
The firstling of an ass you shall redeem with one of the flock; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. The first-born among your sons you shall redeem. "No one shall appear before me empty-handed.
21
"For six days you may work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; on that day you must rest even during the seasons of plowing and harvesting.
22
3 "You shall keep the feast of Weeks with the first of the wheat harvest; likewise, the feast at the fruit harvest at the close of the year.
23
Three times a year all your men shall appear before the Lord, the LORD God of Israel.
24
Since I will drive out the nations before you to give you a large territory, there will be no one to covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the LORD, your God.
25
"You shall not offer me the blood of sacrifice with leavened bread, nor shall the sacrifice of the Passover feast be kept overnight for the next day.
26
"The choicest first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the LORD, your God. "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk."

These are not the same as the Commandments in exodus 20.

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

He selectively mentioned commandments to teach an underlying truth; that the commandments given had a deeper meaning, whether the ten, or the ceremonial, or the civil laws. On the Mount His intent was to preach to His listeners the spirit of the law and principles of life according to God's love, mercy, and justice. Remember the same confusion about changing the law looked apparent to his listeners that's why He emphatically stated in Matt 5:17 onwards that He did not come to abolish the law.

Agreed, but why do those who insist that Christians obey the sabbath, not insist on following the whole law?

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

I also study church's history to see how different doctrines emerged, how they understood God's providence and leadership, how they acquired divergent practices, and how such practices, beliefs, and doctrines maybe a reflection to secular philosophies of their times, if any doctrine may have had a pagan influence, and if any system of belief meet the test methods given by the bible. Paul said that we try every spirit, and the bible clearly outlines the criteria to do the evaluation.

Grip, the source of divergent doctrines is the 16th century reformation, which completely did away with church Tradition. Before that, there were only three churches claiming to hold the apostolic faith (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox).

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Remember the bible talked of those who will err from the faith, those who were among the membership of the church, but they went away from the church to teach their own gospel. Paul encountered them, John dealt with them, Peter talked of their coming, and Jude cautioned againist them. So traditions that are not according to biblical ratified doctrines must be questioned, and discarded if found wanting.

Those who the apostles dealt with were the Judaizers, Gnostics, Docetists, and the Nicholaitans. On another interesting note, by today's standards, the Docetists and Nicholaitans would be considered simply as another Christian denomination.

[grip_daddy]

Ndigila,

The commandments you gave were not written by God Himself but by Moses (see vs 27 onwards). God Himself was to write the words that were in the first tables (see vs 1) which act is NOT recorded in this chapter.

So, my question still remains, why were the ten commandments recorded in chapter 20 treated with specialty?

Those who teach people to keep the Sabbath base their argument like this:

1. Sabbath is part of the ten commandments which God spoke, or said, and wrote. Whoever breaks any of these commandments that James called the royal law, breaks all of the ten laws (see James 2).

2. The Sabbath commandment starts with the word Remember. This word used was the Hebrew word which means to bring into memory that which was in existent and should always be recalled. So Sabbath was existent for man before this day of Sinai.

3. The above is emphasized by the fact that in Exodus 16 those who broke the Sabbath were condemned even before the law was given. The condemnation contain wordings to imply that God's laws were already established which they ought to have kept. The same can be said to be true when God said of Abraham that Abraham kept His laws, commandments, and statutes. So the laws of God goes back to the period of Abraham and even Noah's.

4. Jesus said that the Sabbath was made (the word rendered "made" here should be translated "created") for man, and not man for the Sabbath. It means that the making of the Sabbath day was done for the sake of man.

5. The Sabbath day was added after six days of creation. The word rest found Genesis 2:1-3 comes from the Hebrew word Shabbat from where both Seventh and Rest came from to make the word Sabbath. Here we find God adding a Sabbath (Seventh day rest) to the week to create a weekly circle of seven days. Jesus said that this Seventh day rest was made or created for man.

6. Jesus said that the wordings of Isaiah 58:13-14 applied to Him. "If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as you please on my holy day, if you call the Sabbath a delight and the LORD's holy day honourable". The verse identifies the Sabbath as the LORD's holy day, of which Jesus claimed the He is the Lord of the Sabbath.

7. Isaiah 40-66 basically deal with New Covenant Prophecies including the birth of Christ, His ministry, the work of John the baptist, the death of Christ, the spread of the gospel to other nations, and second coming of Christ. In these prophecies we specifically read, "This is what the LORD says, 'Maintain justice and do what is right, for my salvation is close at hand and my righteousness will soon be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, the man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.'" Isaiah 56:1-2. Reading from chapter 40 will help to keep the words in their prophetic context.

To show that the promise is for all, God continued to state, "these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer...for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations" vs 7. Please note that since this is a new covenant prophecy after the righteousness of God shall have been revealed (the first coming, ministry and death of Christ), the burnt offerings and sacrifices are what Paul called the prayers of the saints. The same is emphasized in this chapter by God calling his house of prayer to be a house of prayer for all nations. See vs 8.

In summation, the Sabbath was made for man, given for him to REMEMBER that God is the Creator (compare Gen 2:1-3 with Exodus 20:8-11), breaking it is breaking the laws (note the plural) of God, it is part of new covenant prophecy, was said to be made by Jesus (He is the LORD of the Sabbath), was kept by Him (see Luke 4:16), and will be kept in the new earth and the new heavens (see Isaiah 66:22, 23).

[grip_daddy]

Ndigila,

The people who insist that the Sabbath must be kept do not say that the other laws (laws outside the ten commandments as recorded in Exodus 20) must also be kept because of:

1. The civil laws were given as a guide to Israel as a nation...of which a particular nation can borrow when making their own laws, constitutions, and penal codes. Stoning to death was a method of capital punishment of which nations have diverse methods.

2. The laws (sacrifices, ordinances of days, sabbaths, offerings) were given to foretell the first coming of Christ, His ministry and death. At Christ's death, the laws ceased, or terminated (Daniel 9:24-27, Ephesians 2, Colosians 2, Galatians). These laws were not abolished as some may claim, but their usefulness had reached an end rendering them insignificant.

3. The difference between the ROYAL law is seen on the special treatment of the ten commandments. The ten commandments, all of them, are traceable back to creation, but the other laws came with the children of Israel forming a nation. So those not traceable to creation can not be said to bind non Jews.

[ndigila]

Grip, remember the thread "Christianity vs the Church?" This was one of the issues, and the problem with using the Bible only approach is that you could make a good scriptural argument for both sides.

Colossians 2:14-16 having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

Anyway, Sunday worship was a tradition established by the apostles to commemmorate Christ's resurrection, and the writings of the early church fathers attest to this.

[grip_daddy]

grip, remember the thread "christianity vs the church?" this was one of the issues, and the problem with using the bible only approach is that you could make a good scriptural argument for both sides.

I agree that difficulties surround the understanding of scriptures which has led to numerous and diverse doctrines and practices over the centuries. Also if you may recall, even the israelites were divided into many groupings; the samaritans had their own application of the scriptures, the pharasees and the seducess likewise. If this fact is accepted, it would also be agreed that even the so called church fathers you mention below contradicted themselves in the messages they were spreading. To accept, therefore, any human propagated gospel contrary to old testament god ordained truths should be rejected. This is true given that new testament message, nature, and intent were equally documented by the prophets from moses down to malachi. Paul himself in galatians wrote that even if an angel would come from heaven with a different gospel, let that angel be accursed.

colossians 2:14-16 havinga cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a new moon celebration or a sabbath day.

In understanding biblical passages, the rule of language in relation to syntax, context, nouns, articles, adjectives, original words, etc should be taken into consideration to avoid misapplication and/or misunderstanding of the message. In the above passage, let's consider few words:

1. Written code - This means the code moses wrote. Mark the words of james when he wrote, "for he who said" James 2:11. The words "said" and "written" means we compare the events of exodus 19-20, and those of exodus 34, where my question is, why the difference in treatment?

2. Festivities - This word basically points us to three festivities in israel's calender...the passover, the camp meetings, and the pentecoast. These festivities were pointing towards christ coming and also reminding them of deliverance from egypt and their sojourn in the wilderness.

3. A sabbath - As opposed to the sabbath of the lord, a sabbath basically applies to numerous other sabbaths as was contained in the written code. The sabbath spoken of by God had creation attached to it. The sabbath as was talked of by Jesus was specifically instituted for man to remember creation and the creator, which had nothing to do with israelites. But as israelites were a special people chosen to show god's glory to the rest of mankind, they were not only supposed to have a high ranking constitution governing them, but also magnify the eternal laws of god. Psalms 19: 7-8, "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart, the commandments of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes...they are more precious than gold...by keeping them there is a great reward." also take note that only one commandment expressly contains blessings when kept as given in Isaiah 58:13-14. The wordings of Psalms are contrary to words of colossians which speaks of the regulations "that were againts us, and that stood opposed to us".

The commandments written by Moses were nailed on the cross, whereas those spoken by God endures forever. When the young man who was told to go and sell his wealth and give the poor said that he had kept God's commandments, he mentioned the spoken commandments of which Jesus first commended him, but reminded him about the spirit of the law.

Anyway, sunday worship was a tradition established by the apostles to commemmorate christ's resurrection, and the writings of the early church fathers attest to this.

Jesus spent 40 days before ascending to heaven. The apostles wrote epistles in a span of over 50 years. If sunday keeping was recognised by them, they could have stated. If there was anything most important in a Jew's mind, was the Sabbath issue. The new testament silence on Sunday worship simply means that there was no one in support/controversy.Christ himself could have expressed his wish that his resurrection be commemorated in a manner of observing a day. Remember Christ only left one ceremony to commemorate his death, burial and resurrection-the sacrament. He knew he would resurrect on the first day, but asked no one to remember that day. Even not remembering his death and resurrection during Easter, or his birth during Christmas, violates non of God's laws or requirements. Just imagine that Jesus was accused of breaking the Sabbath, you think apostles not only breaking but changing it would have gone unnoticed? I have OT prophecies supporting Sabbath observance in new covenant, and also a prophecy stating a thinking by the little horn to change the times and the laws, also of a beast imposing a mark on people's forehead (thinking) and demanding worship through deception and miracles, and I am convinced that this beast uses or twist God's express spoken laws to receive reverence. Wondered why a church should kill heretics as was manifest in dark ages?

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

In understanding biblical passages, the rule of language in relation to syntax, context, nouns, articles, adjectives, original words, etc should be taken into consideration to avoid misapplication and/or misunderstanding of the message.

It is this method that's the problem, Grip, scriptures have to be understood in their historical context. Not through Biblical scholasticism. Scholasticism just allows for subjectivity.

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Jesus spent 40 days before ascending to heaven. The apostles wrote epistles in a span of over 50 years. If sunday keeping was recognised by them, they could have stated. If there was anything most important in a Jew's mind, was the Sabbath issue. The new testament silence on Sunday worship simply means that there was no one in support/controversy.Christ himself could have expressed his wish that his resurrection be commemorated in a manner of observing a day. Remember Christ only left one ceremony to commemorate his death, burial and resurrection-the sacrament. He knew he would resurrect on the first day, but asked no one to remember that day. Even not remembering his death and resurrection during Easter, or his birth during Christmas, violates non of God's laws or requirements. Just imagine that Jesus was accused of breaking the Sabbath, you think apostles not only breaking but changing it would have gone unnoticed? I have OT prophecies supporting Sabbath observance in new covenant, and also a prophecy stating a thinking by the little horn to change the times and the laws, also of a beast imposing a mark on people's forehead (thinking) and demanding worship through deception and miracles, and I am convinced that this beast uses or twist God's express spoken laws to receive reverence. Wondered why a church should kill heretics as was manifest in dark ages?

You're still using the Bible-only approach. The fact that the New Testament is silent about the change doesn't mean that the change didn't happen or that it isn't significant. There's some teachings Christ taught that are not recorded in the New Testament. An example is in Acts 20:35, Paul quotes Jesus as saying "It is more blessed to give than to receive." None of the Gospels record that. The closest to this quote is "Freely you have received, freely give."